According to its website, “PITCH allows innovative entrepreneurs to quickly launch token sales and sell a portion of tokens via live video pitches to seasoned business experts.” Given that a vast majority of ICOs right now suck ass 🍑 and the projects they’re funding are doomed to fail, can anyone possibly think a blockchain-based solution designed to make it even easier to launch an ICO is a good idea? Well, yes, actually…
If you have read any of our other ICO reviews, it should be pretty fucking clear by now that the ass clowns 🍑🤡 who write these things are not at all shy about expressing our opinion that most projects currently fundraising via ICO are absolute garbage.
Note: Even if they appear fairly intelligent, anyone who is unwilling to admit that at least 90% of all ICO-funded projects are going to fail is full of shit
In fact, once you account for all of the following:
- obvious scams;
- not-so-obvious scams;
- projects that have no legitimate reason to use blockchain other than to raise a fuckton of money via an ICO;
- projects that don’t have a realistic business model;
- projects that didn’t spend enough time focusing on the underlying tokenomics of their platform; and
- projects that will crash and burn because they are building on a network that isn’t anywhere near being scalable or fast enough (yes, we’re looking at you Ethereum)
It is very difficult to find any projects that are even remotely viable much less interesting. That being said, they can occasionally be found. And we believe that Pitch might actually be one of those. So without any more introductory filler, let’s get to the review…
Fun fact: Pitch is a startup…
trying to raise funds via a token sale to develop a solution on the blockchain…
to help other startups…
trying to raise funds via a token sale to develop solutions on the blockchain…
Common sense would suggest that if you’re trying to develop a blockchain-based solution that will disrupt an entire industry, it’s important to have the following on your team:
- At least one person who knows how to run a business;
- At least one person who knows the industry you are trying to disrupt; and
- At least one person who understands blockchain technology.
Hopefully your team consists of more than just three people, but as long as you have at least one of each, you are off to a good start.
This shit ain’t rocket surgery, folks. Yet we are constantly amazed at the number of projects out there asking for $20,000,000+ that are missing one, two, and sometimes even all three of these key team members (read our ICO Review: eInc for a great example)
Turning now to the Pitch team, lets see how things stack up…
- At least one person who knows how to run a business. Check.
Pitch has an abundance of team members who know how to run a business, including two self-proclaimed “visionaries…” (whatever THAT means)
- At least one person who knows the industry you are trying to disrupt. Check.
Given the meta aspect of the project cited above, who better than a collection of seasoned entrepreneurs to understand and disrupt the space?
- At least one person who understands blockchain technology. Meh.
The lead “visionary” claims to be a “blockchain expert,” but that phrase is about as useful as “visionary.” The only qualifications he lists to back up his “blockchain expertise” are “Early adopter of Bitcoin” and “Proficient in Ethereum smart contract development.” Sorry, but those do not make you a blockchain expert.
As far as the rest of the team is concerned, though, there appears to be a solid group of financial, technological and marketing experts involved. So other than a little more emphasis on the blockchain side of things, the only way Pitch could possibly make the team any more impressive was if they managed to attract HOLY SHIT IS THAT KEVIN FUCKING HARRINGTON THE ORIGINAL SHARK FROM SHARK TANK?!?
OK then. There’s your team. Moving on…
One of the biggest problems in the ICO space is “information asymmetry,” meaning that so few people understand any of it that they sheepishly rely on “crypto influencers” and ICO review sites to make investment decisions instead of doing their own research. This in turn provides plenty of opportunities for con artists and other bad actors (including most “crypto influencers” and the people behind most ICO review sites) to take advantage of that lack of information and promote shit projects that have no hope of success.
Pitch has the potential to eliminate much of this information asymmetry by letting founders and investors connect directly in real time via video chat and permitting audience members to ask questions and challenge the fundamentals of the project. It’s uncertain the extent to which Pitch will have an impact on the problem, but the potential is there and we’re excited about that.
One of the questions we always like to ask when reviewing projects is “Why blockchain?” and many times the only honest answer is because it’s the only way they can raise a fuckton of money doing an ICO.
We don’t believe that’s the case with Pitch. What’s interesting, however, is that a lot of time is spent in the whitepaper talking about how they want to gradually decentralize Pitch to “eliminate censorship.” But is censorship really a problem in the current startup/investor ecosystem? To be blunt, we think that’s a load of bullshit, most likely being offered up to justify use of the blockchain or provide some legal cover (more on that later). But as far as we’re concerned, the fact that investors and startups will be using PITCH tokens within the application to transact as well as invest in projects being pitched, all of which will also be on the blockchain, justifies blockchain. No extra bullshit required.
We don’t usually raise potential legal concerns in our reviews simply because if a project is total crap, the number of fucks we give if it crashes and burns due to legal or regulatory problems is exactly zero. However, we like Pitch and want it to succeed, and so point out the following concerns:
- It isn’t clear that a usable MVP will be ready when the token sale ends, which is kind of a problem if you’re allowing U.S. participants and claiming a “utility token” exemption; and
- Even if the PITCH token isn’t being used as a security in Pitch itself, isn’t it being used as a security when investors use it to “invest” in other projects being pitched?
What are the answers to these legal questions? Fuck if we know. We’re ass clowns, not attorneys. And even if we were attorneys, this site doesn’t provide legal (or financial) advice. But it does provide lots of profanity, and one thing we appreciate about the way Pitch seems to be addressing these legal issues is it’s kind of like telling the SEC that if it doesn’t like what they’re doing it can go fuck itself.
In summary, the team is solid and although they could use some more blockchain experience, we’re sure they’ll be able to find it because having Kevin Fucking Harrington involved in the project guarantees this thing is going to get traction. We also really like the vision and how it has the potential to clean up a lot of the bullshit in the ICO space right now. Finally, from a technical standpoint, although what they’re doing doesn’t seem that difficult (or especially disruptive) they’ve got first mover advantage and oh did we mention Kevin Fucking Harrington? We feel pretty good about this one.
Our final Honest AF Rating on this project is a 2.6 – 😐 Not terrible